“We want to live a little longer and our family want[s] us around”: A summative content analysis of adherence to COVID‐19‐related guidelines using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Objective Public adherence to COVID‐19‐related government guidance varied during the initial lockdown in the UK, but the determinants of public adherence to such guidance are unclear. We capture spontaneous reflections on adherence to UK government guidance from a representative UK sample, and use the TDF to identify key determinants of COVID‐related behaviours. Design The design was cross‐sectional. Methods Qualitative data were collected from a large sample of UK adults (N = 2,252) via an online questionnaire as part of a wider survey about the UK public’s responses to the government’s COVID‐19‐related guidance. Summative content analysis was used to identify key guideline terms in the data, followed by latent analysis to interpret the underlying meanings behind the terms using the TDF as an analytical framework. Results Six TDF domains were identified in the data: Environmental Context and Resources; Beliefs about Consequences; Social Influences; Memory, Attention and Decision Processes; Emotion; and Knowledge. Although the samples were motivated and capable of adhering, limitations in their environments, resources, and social support mechanisms restricted behaviour. Self‐reported adherence was sensitive to positive and negative beliefs about the effectiveness of the measures, in addition to interpretations of the terms ‘essential’ and ‘necessary’ in the guidance. Conclusions Despite extensive structural obstacles to adherence, the majority of the British public were able to follow government COVID‐19‐related instructions, provided they had sufficient resources, social support, and positive perceptions about the effectiveness of the measures. Ambiguities surrounding key terminology in the guidance left room for interpretation, which may have contributed to non‐adherence.

they had sufficient resources, social support, and positive perceptions about the effectiveness of the measures. Ambiguities surrounding key terminology in the guidance left room for interpretation, which may have contributed to non-adherence.

Statement of contribution
What is already known on this subject?
Behavioural measures were implemented in worldwide lockdowns to suppress the spread of COVID-

19.
Public adherence differed between stay home, hand hygiene, and physical distancing measures. Discrete drivers of adherence have been identified, but comprehensive frameworks were not applied.

What does this study add?
Local resources and community support are needed for sustained adherence to behavioural measures. Knowledge provision about COVID-19 must be trustworthy and unambiguous to avoid misinterpretation.
Interventions to bolster well-being and morale could benefit people under behavioural restrictions.

Background
Since the COVID-19 pandemic was declared in March 2020 (World Health Organization, 2020), governments and public health bodies implemented behavioural advice and 'lockdown' measures to control the spread of the virus (Coroiu, Moran, Campbell, & Geller, 2020;Pak, McBryde, & Adegboye, 2021). The UK government advised specific health measures to 'Stay Home, Protect The NHS, Save Lives': this involved maintaining hand hygiene by washing hands with soap and water for 20 seconds; physical distancing (remaining 1-2 metres apart from anybody not living in one's household; Sørensen, Okan, Kondilis, & Levin-Zamir, 2021); and announcing a national 'stay-at-home' order to curb non-essential travel and gatherings (Public Health England, 2020). Imposing measures to enforce the 1-2 metre physical distancing rule reduced virus transmission in the UK (Jarvis et al., 2020) and worldwide (Islam, Vidot, & Camacho-Rivera, 2021;McGrail, Dai, McAndrews, & Kalluri, 2020), leading to a gradual easing of restrictions (Han et al., 2020) and reduced mortality (Margraf, Brailovskaia, & Schneider, 2021). However, further lockdowns were implemented in the UK to control new variants and increased infection rates (Kirby, 2021;Merchant, Kow, & Hasan, 2021), and it is likely that similar lockdown measures could be needed in the future to control COVID-19, other novel coronaviruses, or other anticipated pandemics (Thoradeniya & Jayasinghe, 2021). It is therefore important to learn as much as possible from these early experiences.
The success of preventative measures relies upon sustained adherence by members of the public (Chater et al., 2021;Michie et al., 2020;Speight, Skinner, Hately-Browne, & Abraham, 2020). Adherence to the first cluster of government guidance was initially high in the UK , China (Gao et al., 2020), the USA (Qeadan et al., 2020), and Western European countries (Margraf, Brailovskaia, & Schneider, 2020). However, further inspection of the data suggests that adherence differs between different guideline behaviours. For example, a survey collected the week before the initial UK lockdown from a sample of 2,108 adults suggested 86% washed their hands more frequently, but only 45% avoided crowded places and social events (Atchison et al., 2021). Similarly, among a representative sample of 11,342 working-age Japanese citizens, 86% adhered to hand hygiene measures during the initial lockdown phase, while 57% adhered to physical distancing measures (Muto, Yamamoto, Nagasu, Tanaka, & Wada, 2020). Data collected during May 2020 (after the partial easing of UK lockdown restrictions) from a sample of 681 people in North London found that 90% of the sample could not maintain 2-metre distance from other people, when outside for permitted reasons (Hills & Eraso, 2021). This inconsistency has prompted researchers to examine why people do, or do not, adhere to government instructions.
A number of studies have utilized quantitative questionnaire data to identify potentially modifiable determinants of guideline adherence, such as attitudes towards measures (Czeisler et al., 2021;Gao et al., 2020); pro-social motivations about 'civic duty' or 'social responsibility' to protect others (Coroiu et al., 2020;Gouin et al., 2021); and beliefs surrounding risk and susceptibility (Xie, Liang, Dulebenets, & Mei, 2020). Structural barriers to physical distancing have been identified, such as environmental restrictions in houses of multiple occupancy (Hills & Eraso, 2021), and caring responsibilities . However, these survey studies rely on direct questioning and survey methods (Mieth, Mayer, Hoffmann, Buchner, & Bell, 2021), so there is little understanding about what is meant when members of the public say they are adhering to the government's instruction. Binary yes/no responses and numerical ratings of adherence provide limited insight into the ways people interpret and act upon the broad terminology used in health guidance, particularly where several complex behaviours are involved; the analysis of spontaneous qualitative responses may capture some of the nuances missed by existing research, and identify opportunities to improve future interventions and public health messages (Braun, Clarke, Boulton, Davey, & Mcevoy, 2020).
Interviews and focus groups have been used to investigate participant-generated determinants of adherence among a Canadian sample (Benham et al., 2021); experiences of complying with 'stay-at-home' measures in the UK (Williams, Armitage, Tampe, & Dienes, 2020); and adherence within a UK Muslim community (Hassan, Ring, Tahir, & Gabbay, 2021). However, the above quantitative and qualitative evidence is limited by a lack of theoretical grounding to guide the identification of salient determinants. To address this deficit, some models such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Margraf et al., 2020;Sturman, Auton, & Thacker, 2020), Health Action Process Approach (Beeckman et al., 2020), and Extended Parallel Process Model (Lithopoulos, Liu, Zhang, & Rhodes, 2021) have been used to explore the extent that attitudes, risk perception, and selfefficacy predict adherence to COVID-19 guideline behaviours. Positive attitudes and knowledge of the guidelines predicted intentions to adhere to COVID-19 measures in accordance with the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Sturman et al., 2020). Perceived capability, measured as self-efficacy, was a strong predictor of intentions to adhere across the Health Action Process Approach and Extended Parallel Process Models, while negative well-being, lack of social support, and beliefs about the exaggeration of COVID-19 were associated with barriers to adherence (Beeckman et al., 2020;Lithopoulos et al., 2021). Although these studies have a theoretical basis and make feasible recommendations to target amenable factors, such as perceived threat, efficacy, and attitudes, a disadvantage is that the models they are based upon are not comprehensive, so do not offer a full range of potential strategies for change to remediate low adherence.
A solution to the limitations of existing research is to utilize the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) (Atkins et al., 2017;Cane, O'Connor, & Michie, 2012) to explore adherence. The TDF integrates several theories of behaviour change into a single framework of behavioural determinants, which is advantageous because it offers a single, comprehensive tool for analysis instead of numerous overlapping models. This framework comprises fourteen domains encapsulating cognitive (e.g. Intentions), affective (e.g. Emotions), social (e.g. Social Influences), and environmental (e.g. Environmental Context and Resources) influences on behaviour, which can be used to categorize the determinants of behaviour. Although the TDF was developed for implementation research to understand and change healthcare professional behaviour (Cane et al., 2012), it has been applied to complex health behaviours by members of the public, such as physical activity (Haith-Cooper, Waskett, Montague, & Horne, 2018), medication adherence (Prajapati et al., 2019), and use of sexual health services (Cassidy et al., 2018). The TDF is part of the Behaviour Change Wheel for intervention development (Michie, Atkins, & West, 2014), meaning there is potential to use salient domains to select candidate intervention functions, behaviour change techniques, and policy categories to form behaviour change interventions (Cane, Richardson, Johnston, Ladha, & Michie, 2015). Therefore, the TDF is an appropriate framework to understand reflections on adherence to COVID-19-related guidance, and holds the potential to identify potentially modifiable targets for behaviour change at the individual, community, and policy level.

Aims
The present study aimed to: (a) Capture spontaneous reflections on adherence to UK government guidance from a representative UK sample, and (b) Use the TDF to identify key determinants of COVID-related behaviours.

Methods
Design and procedure The design was cross-sectional. Qualitative data were collected from a large sample of UK adults (N = 2,252) designed to be representative of the UK population via an online questionnaire as part of a wider survey that assessed the UK public's adherence to the government's COVID-19-related guidance, and identified prevalent challenges to adherence Keyworth et al., 2021). Ethical approval was obtained from a University Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 2020-9551-15105) and participants gave informed consent at the beginning of the survey. The survey was conducted through a survey panel company in April 2020 (YouGov). The survey company aimed to recruit a sample representative of the UK population from their participant pool using quotas for age, ethnicity, gender, and country of residence. Participants were incentivized to take part with a points-based system, where respondents accumulate points for completing surveys in exchange for prize draws or cash payment. Survey responses were collected and anonymized by the company, then transferred to the researchers for analysis.

Measures
Sociodemographic factors, such as age, gender, ethnicity, and social grade were collected, in addition to country of residence, work status, marital status, and information about children. Participants were provided with a single questionnaire item: 'What challenges, if any, are you facing in following the UK government's coronavirus guidance?
'. An openended text field captured their responses to allow for spontaneous descriptions of adherence, providing the potential to capture a diverse range of perspectives, in addition to rich, focused accounts of adherence-related behaviours (Braun et al., 2020). Since the survey question was not structured around TDF domains, respondents could naturally report on determinants of their behaviour. This is advantageous because it expands on the quantitative measures of adherence captured in the wider survey , and is not limited to barriers and enablers conceptualized by the TDF, whilst using the TDF as a tool to organize the data into a priori themes (McGowan, Powell, & French, 2020).

Analysis
Summative content analysis was used to analyse the data, to focus the analysis around key words derived from the government guidance (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). This is an analytical approach that begins with the identification of key terms in a dataset, followed by a latent analysis to interpret the underlying meanings behind the terms (Holsti, 1969;Morse & Field, 1995). Summative content analysis was selected as an appropriate exploratory method after data collection was completed because it offered a strategy to quantify and compare the prominence of key phrases derived from government instructions, and interpret and reflect upon the ways that members of the public understood the instructions.
Stage 1: Identification of reflective responses A search strategy was developed by the research team to capture the key terminology used in the government guidelines (e.g. 'wash', 'stay', 'distanc*') (Appendix A), and terms associated with reasons for or against adherence to the guidelines (e.g. 'have to', 'rarely', 'because') (Appendix B). Guideline terms were selected from the 'Stay Home, Protect The NHS, Save Lives' campaign; this was active during data collection and aimed at everyone in the UK (Public Health England, 2020). The search strategies were executed in Microsoft Excel to identify responses containing reflections on adherence to government instructions; the results of both searches were combined, and duplicates eliminated.
Stage 2: Latent analysis Latent coding analysis was used to interpret reflections on adherence to governmentrelated instructions from data identified in Stage 1. This involved selecting statements that provided any reasons for adherence or non-adherence to any of the guideline measures, by hand-searching the responses. Two members of the research team (JZL and CK) analysed the data independently, and coding discrepancies were resolved through discussion until an agreement was reached.
Stage 3: Framework analysis using the TDF Microsoft Excel was used to facilitate the coding and organization of themes for analysis; a framework approach (Gale, Heath, Cameron, Rashid, & Redwood, 2013) was used by one coder (JZL) to map the data onto relevant domains of the TDF to explore both predetermined and emergent themes. This allowed the coder to identify constructs that may be amenable to change using deductive (first level) coding (Atkins et al., 2017). A sample of 50 responses was checked by both coders (JZL and CK) to check JZL's consistency and ensure inter-coder reliability (O'Connor & Joffe, 2020); both coders agreed on 100% of the codes from this sample. 17 further responses were queried by JZL for not fitting any domains, which were then categorized into appropriate TDF domains following discussion with CK (this process is detailed in Appendix C). Some responses mentioned numerous determinants that fit more than one domain; these quotes were mapped in their entirety to relevant domains. Finally, barriers and enablers within each domain were coded inductively (second level) using a priori themes. Since the COM-B model characterizes behaviour as a result of an interaction between capability, opportunity, and motivation (Michie et al., 2014), overlapping themes across TDF domains were anticipated; these were identified and labelled during second-level coding (an example of this is illustrated in Appendix D).
One hundred and seventy-one participants provided a null response to the open-ended questionnaire item. Such responses consisted of blanks, punctuation marks, expletives, emoji, key smashes, variations on abbreviations such as 'N/A' or 'DK', and single words unrelated to the guidance such as "Excellent" (Participant 35). Null responders were younger on average (M = 44.1, SD=16.4) than the wider sample. A greater proportion were men (N = 98, 57.6%); aged between 18-34 (N = 59, 34.5%); and were of a lower social grade (N = 73, 42.7%).
After applying Stage 1 of the search strategy, 1,695 responses (75.3%) included at least one government guideline-related term. Captured guideline terms (Public Health England, 2020) can be found in Table 1. Staying at home was mentioned most frequently in 1,198 (53.2%) unique statements. Hand washing (N = 717 statements; 31.8%) and physical distancing (N = 669 statements; 29.7%) were mentioned less. There were few demographic differences between those who mentioned different behaviours. Participants who mentioned hand washing were older (M = 51.13, SD=16.59) than those who mentioned physical distancing (M = 49.83, SD=16.45) or staying at home (M = 49.55, SD=17.32), and a greater proportion of women mentioned hand washing (N = 449, 62.2%) than staying at home (N = 725, 60.5%) or physical distancing (N = 383 57.2%).
In terms of adherence-related terms, most participants used reflective terminology (N = 1,083; 48.1%) (e.g. 'I try to keep to all the instructions. . . because I don't want to catch the virus or transmit it'; Participant 1076). Modals related to adherence were used less often (N = 592; 26.3%) (e.g. '. . . only shopping when I need to'; Participant 827); however, frequency terminology was used least often (N = 239; 10.6%) (e.g. '. . . not washing my hands any more regularly than before'; Participant 949).

1,083
Latent analysis: reflections on adherence Of the 1,211 statements identified, a total of 498 (41.1%) were coded as containing a barrier or enabler; demographics of this sub-sample are presented in Appendix E. These codes were mapped to relevant domains of the TDF framework. Thirteen determinants of behaviour were identified from the data, and 6 domains were considered important (illustrated in Table 2). A complete breakdown of determinants is depicted in Figure 1.
Environmental context and resources (320 statements; 64.3% of 498) Participants' circumstances dictated whether their surroundings acted as an enabler or barrier. Living in rural areas, near green spaces, or coastline were cited as enablers to physical distancing, because daily exercise could be taken at a safe physical distance from others without travelling further afield. Spacious gardens enabled exercise at home, and provided a contained environment for physically distanced social interactions. Working from home and being furloughed were commonly mentioned enablers; access to video conferencing software enabled remote working 'rather than face to face' Access to resources such as medication and grocery delivery slots were important for staying at home during the lockdown; lack of access as a result of high demand and stock shortages due to stockpiling, meant many participants had to make several trips to different shops or risk 'run[ning] out of food' (Participant 1637). This was further complicated by the absence of cars; those unable to carry groceries alone on foot would share the load with another person or make multiple trips. Crowding in shops, parks, and pavements was highlighted as a barrier to physical distancing by members of the public, however, some suggested the risks could be mitigated with marshals to limit numbers indoors, and priority shopping periods for key workers and clinically vulnerable people. Moreover, the shutdown of social gathering spaces like pubs was a reluctant facilitator for staying at home. A few participants described practical difficulties to staying at home if they lived between two households (e.g. in romantic relationships), or had care responsibilities for animals, such as horses and dogs. In contrast, beliefs that the measures were unnecessary acted as a barrier, underlined by a low-perceived threat of the virus. Participants were sceptical towards the time limit on daily exercise, and questioned the effectiveness of extra hygiene precautions (e.g. 'I wash my hands only if I have touched something outside, no need to otherwise'; Participant 793). A common barrier for people living alone was the perceived negative consequences on mental health by remaining in isolation; one participant stated the lockdown was 'causing more problems than it's solving' (Participant 1735) in terms of mental distress, prompting them to socialize with friends. Participants who mentioned socializing to ease mental distress from lockdown were all unpartnered (i.e.: never married, separated, or widowed), and all but one were childless, suggesting those living alone may experience different barriers to following the instructions. Social influences (109 statements; 21.9% of 498) Clinically vulnerable participants were supported to stay-at-home by close family members from other households, such as parents or adult children. Assistance from neighbours, volunteer shoppers, or friends was less common, except among older participants (aged 55+). Participants who delivered these support mechanisms described their caring responsibilities as a barrier to following the guidance, since they needed to undertake more shopping trips and enter the home of the person they were caring for 'to deliver and unpack shopping as necessary and to take in meals' (Participant 881). Additionally, one participant rejected the concept of receiving help from volunteers, because they did not want to disclose their health status to strangers.
Childcare responsibilities created both barriers and facilitators depending on the children's age. Participants that recently had a baby were enabled to follow the guidance due to the extra precautions taken around maternity services. However, those with school-age children described difficulties managing childcare around work commitments; a lack of 'respite from my children [and stress] about homeschooling' (Participant 957) prompted them to seek cross-household assistance from family members such as retired grandparents. Younger (aged 18-34), unmarried people in romantic relationships felt pressured to either move in together, or break the stay-at-home guidance to visit each other. Challenges with other household members not adhering were also described as a barrier. Unfortunately, participants across the sample frequently reported other members of the public as a barrier to physical distancing, due to a perceived lack of care. This led to confrontations and arguments with strangers when out exercising or shopping, while older participants expressed feelings of defeat (e.g. 'What can you do when people get too close?', Participant 906) and worry (e.g. 'People INVADE MY SPACE. . . and I am afraid to challenge them. I am Silver haired and concerned about them disrespecting me because of my perceived age.', Participant 699). I try to stay 2 m away from everyone however this is not always possible in a small shop and most customers do not care about social distancing. (Participant 1565) I am high risk/vulnerable but I have still been out to get supplies and to go to for walk just for my peace of mind and well-being. Moreover, it's not realistic to rely on someone else to get our supplies as you don't necessarily want people to know your health status. (Participant 1928) Memory, attention, and decision processes (85 statements; 17.1% of 498) In terms of deciding to adhere, participants prominently described government prompts as a catalyst for behaviour change; notably receiving a letter advising to self-isolate on grounds of clinical vulnerability, and daily televised newscasts from the government. In addition to the health consequences outlined previously, participants mentioned adhering 'because the gov[ernment] advised' (Participant 1391); that they were 'doing as asked' (Participant 2029); or 'as I'm told' (Participant 51). Others stated that they '[would] not wait to be told' (Participant 476), instead preferring to follow their instincts or adopt guidance from other health bodies that advocated for face coverings and additional hygiene precautions.
Forgetting was a common barrier for hand washing (e.g. 'Sometimes I don't always wash my hands when I come in' Participant 596), physical distancing, and staying at home (e.g. '. . .because we run out of food. If I planned properly, I wouldn't need to do this' Participant 1637); however, these participants emphasized that lapses in memory were unintentional. In contrast, participants cited occasions where they broke the stay-athome guidance deliberately by going out more than once a day because they decided it was not dangerous. These participants 'exercise[ed their] best judgement' (Participant 304) to make decisions about their health. Similarly, participants described the term 'essential' in the guidance as having room for interpretation, using this as justification for trips 'just. . . to buy chocolate, lager' (Participant 1720), to 'visit a local off license' (Participant 2202), or to make 'purchases at hardware stores' (Participant 304). Similar justifications were made about travelling for exercise in 'a different place' (Participant 1506), or entering relatives' households. Beyond interpretations of the guidance, participants argued that they should 'be free to make [their] own life decisions' (Participant 1735), and considered the lockdown measures an 'infringement' (Participant 793) on their capacity to do so. However, they also conceded that it was more troublesome to become involved in confrontations, than to abide physical distancing: 'it is easier to follow rules than to disobey them' (Participant 119).
Some of the instructions are open to interpretation and some other people may not agree. . . I may go on a long walk or cycle ride. . . just as I would have done before Covid, but I will maintain distances. . . Also, I have visited a shop to buy non-food goods, which some people seem to think is wrong. (Participant 1506) Emotion (29 statements; 5.8% of 498) A range of emotional determinants impacted participants' behaviour. Negative emotions were prevalent among participants' statements, which characterized both barriers and facilitators. Feelings of 'anxiety' (Participant 593), worry, and fear of persecution (e.g. 'I am afraid that the police will arrest me and destroy my life if I go outside at all', Participant 1249) enabled people to stay-at-home; some patients were disinclined to go outside due to fear of the virus being 'just outside my front door' (Participant 2213). Frustration and suspicion of others encouraged vigilance when distancing out in public. By contrast, some people felt so distressed by living on their own during the lockdown that they broke regulations to socialize with others to '[help them] not to struggle' (Participant 139). Similarly, going out several times a day was described as essential for maintaining well-being and preventing deterioration. This was common among those who had existing mental health difficulties; a participant with a history of substance use said they 'get anxious [being] indoors too long so I go [out] several times a day for short walks' (Participant 1172). Emotional resilience was characterized as an enabler; although one participant reported that they would follow the guidelines until they could not 'stand it any more' (Participant 441), suggesting the emotional toll of the guidelines had a deleterious impact on people's motivation to implement the guidelines. Finally, emotional reactions towards the source of the guidance were both enablers and barriers, based on whether the government guidance was considered reassuring (e.g. 'I am doing everything that the government advise me to do, I have every faith in them.', Participant 2075) or frustrating (e.g. 'I am also not going out as much, solely because everywhere has been forced to shut (by the heavy hand of the nanny state, supported by a cowardly population. . .)', Participant 2140). I do not leave my house, anxiety stops me. . . even when it comes to essential shopping, i have been to the shops twice i think since lock down started. (Participant 593) Knowledge (28 statements; 5.6% of 498) Participants reported that they were committed to following advice from the government because they were told it was important to reduce the R rate and suppress the spread of the virus. Some described the government communications as 'sensible and reassuring' (Participant 337), and sourced their information from news websites, daily briefings, and mobile alerts. Some participants relied on their personal knowledge of preventative measures (e.g. 'following aseptic technique', Participant 1308) from their professional roles in healthcare in addition to the government advice about hand hygiene. However, a minority felt distrust towards messages about COVID-19 from the government, scepticism towards infection and death rate statistics, and rejected mainstream media; these participants described confusion about perceived 'mixed messages' (Participant 305) coming from Westminster and devolved governments (e.g. Scotland) at the time, especially about whether additional measures such as face coverings were necessary. These participants were all aged between 35 and 62, and three-quarters of them were from a lower socioeconomic background. Other sources were perceived to be more reliable than the government, such as foreign news outlets, trusted medical professionals, and the World Health Organization; as such, these participants followed their advice instead. I'm doing this because of the information we have been given by Professor Whitty and his team. (Participant 1120)

Discussion
This paper aimed to explore how members of the UK public described their behaviour in relation to government COVID-19 guidance, and identify salient determinants of COVIDrelated behaviours. Staying at home was the most commonly described guideline measure (70% of statements), followed by hand washing (44%), and physical distancing (40%); as staying at home represented the most extreme and controversial change to daily life, it is unsurprising this was an important issue.
Thirteen determinants of behaviour were identified using the TDF framework, 6 of which were considered important based on the volume of statements relating to each domain. Environmental Context and Resources was the most prominent determinant that enabled staying at home and physical distancing, due to the availability of cars, uncrowded spaces, video conferencing software, and grocery delivery slots. Conversely, lack of access to such resources and environmental limitations in workplaces, public spaces, and households were problematic. This corroborates existing findings highlighting socioeconomic inequities that cause barriers to public adherence (Benham et al., 2021;Hills & Eraso, 2021). Our findings complement research suggesting green spaces, particularly in urban areas, are subject to bottlenecks and overcrowding which discourages access due to safety concerns (Burnett, Olsen, Nicholls, & Mitchell, 2021;Shoari, Ezzati, Baumgartner, Malacarne, & Fecht, 2020); such barriers compound for people on low incomes, from minority ethnic groups, or living in areas of deprivation (Cronin-de-Chavez, Islam, & McEachan, 2019). Determinants relating to Environmental Context and Resources domain overlapped with the Social Influences domain; support from family and neighbours to provide groceries and medication enabled vulnerable individuals to stayat-home, contrasting with a Belgian survey that found no association between social support and stay-at-home behaviour (Beeckman et al., 2020). However, members of the public were a source of frustration and conflict for physical distancing during exercise and shopping, which supports existing findings that successful distancing is contingent upon mutual cooperation (Gouin et al., 2021).
Another prominent determinant was Beliefs About Consequences; participants were motivated to adhere if they believed they were protecting themselves or a vulnerable loved one, which is a powerful motivator (Sturman et al., 2020). Participants felt a sense of duty to protect the country and NHS, which echoes findings from other countries about 'civic' duties and social responsibility (Coroiu et al., 2020;Hassan et al., 2021). In contrast, negative beliefs about the guidance being excessive or ineffective were reasons for nonadherence, consistent with findings about the adoption of protective measures such as face coverings (Taylor & Asmundson, 2021). Furthermore, a meta-analysis of government interventions found that public support for such policies is sensitive to their perceived effectiveness, suggesting that support for COVID-19 instructions could be increased by sufficiently and clearly communicating the effectiveness of the measures (Reynolds, Stautz, Pilling, van der Linden, & Marteau, 2020). There was thematic convergence between Beliefs about Consequences and the Knowledge domain; information about COVID-19 obtained from government sources facilitated adherence (Gao et al., 2020;Vo et al., 2020), but competing information sources and lack of trust diluted the main message (Fancourt, Steptoe, & Wright, 2020).
Memory, Attention and Decision Processes about guideline behaviours were influenced by forgetting (particularly handwashing), appraisals, and interpretations of government terminology. Considering 70% of statements included exemption-related terms such as 'essential', these concepts are likely to have informed public behaviour (Smith et al., 2020). While the frequency of these terms was mostly due to participants describing essential travel or shopping, the mentions of ambiguity are consistent with research where differing interpretations were used to justify non-essential violations (Williams et al., 2020). Emotional barriers to staying at home and physical distancing were prominent, corroborating findings about the psychological toll of adherence to lockdowns (Margraf et al., 2020). However, emotional motivations had mixed impacts on adherence; feelings of fear and anxiety encouraged staying at home for some, while others felt unable to keep distanced from loved ones due to mental distress. This inconsistency was reported in another UK sample, where people who expressed more fear of COVID-19 made more non-essential trips (Kooistra et al., 2020), and calls into question the roles of 'functional fear' and threat appraisal on adherence (Harper, Satchell, Fido, & Latzman, 2020;Lithopoulos et al., 2021). Although fear-based messaging can be an effective strategy to influence attitudes, intentions, and one-time behaviours (e.g. vaccination) provided it is bolstered by efficacy messaging, it is less effective at changing the kinds of recurring behaviours contained in the government guidance (Tannenbaum et al., 2015); indeed, the effect of fear on COVID-19-related compliance is small when selfefficacy is high, suggesting self-efficacy may be a more appropriate target for intervention (Jørgensen, Bor, & Petersen, 2021). There was further convergence between the Emotion, Beliefs About Consequences, and Memory, Attention and Decision Processes domains; beliefs about negative emotional consequences of long-term adherence to the government instructions prompted people living alone to disengage with the stay-athome guidance.

Implications
These findings detail the experiences of a representative sample of UK adults during the first national lockdown. In the context of the wider sample these data were captured from, challenges to guideline adherence were common and varied, particularly in relation to adjustments to daily routines and impacts on mental and physical health . The sample had few physical and social opportunities to adhere , which complements our findings that environmental context and social influences were the two most prominent determinants of behaviour. Although most of the samples were capable and motivated to follow government guidance, their behaviour was restricted by problematic environments, a lack of resources, and limited mutual support. Since these domains are least amenable to individual behaviour change due to the structural nature of environment and resource barriers, behaviour change interventions may not be an appropriate approach to support members of the public. Instead, policy makers and governmental health bodies should be targeted to ensure future initiatives to promote adherence account for inequities exacerbated by government measures (Chater et al., 2021;Michie et al., 2020). Future work could utilize the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify appropriate intervention functions and policy categories to guide the design process of such initiatives (Michie et al., 2014).
A key principle for COVID-19 public health campaigns was to 'make it possible' by providing support to those affected by the measures, in the form of redistributive policies including income protection, food provision, and access to education . Although some measures such as the furlough scheme and priority delivery slots were introduced early on, few continued long term. For example, volunteer support networks appeared during the initial lockdown to coordinate deliveries to vulnerable people (Smith et al., 2020) but were not reinstated during subsequent lockdowns; future initiatives should aim to financially support community-led networks to support the vulnerable and increase mutual caring behaviours (Drury, Carter, Ntontis, & Guven, 2021). Evidence from countries such as Vietnam where cases remained low throughout the pandemic attribute partial success of their measures to the provision of essential supplies and services by the government to facilitate stay-at-home and distancing measures (Vo et al., 2020).
Determinants within domains such as Beliefs About Consequences, Knowledge, Emotions, and Memory, Attention and Decision Processes may provide some opportunities to optimize the public's capabilities and motivations to adhere. Health messaging should emphasize the usefulness and effectiveness of measures, to justify the personal sacrifices demanded of the public and increase policy support (Gouin et al., 2021;Reynolds et al., 2020). Messaging should go beyond knowledge provision by emphasizing the pro-social benefits of adherence, to elicit supporting emotions, such as connectedness and hope to motivate those who are health-literate (Berg-Beckhoff, Dalgaard Guldager, Tanggaard Andersen, Stock, & Smith Jervelund, 2021;Hills & Eraso, 2021). The promotion of prosocial norms and a sense of collective identity in health messages can help to modify self-centred motivations . The introduction of 'support bubble' systems between households in subsequent lockdowns may have eased the emotional burden of staying at home while suppressing transmission (Leng et al., 2021). Messages that reduce fear and include instructions on how to bolster well-being, self-efficacy, and emotional regulation without deviating from the guidance may help tackle the emotional toll of lockdown measures Jørgensen et al., 2021).

Limitations
The data were collected during the original lockdown; since then, government guidance changed multiple times (e.g. local lockdowns, Tier systems, 'Stay Alert') (Nartowski et al., 2020). New, more important determinants may have emerged in the wake of changing public mindset about more recent guidance. Self-reported measures of guideline adherence are overestimated (Mieth et al., 2021), and social desirability biases may mean instances of guideline non-adherence were not described. We did not separate selfisolation or quarantine behaviours, which are the poorest adhered to and in greatest need of intervention support (Smith et al., 2020). Given the removal of lockdown restrictions and adoption of the Track and Trace system, self-isolation in response to contact notifications and quarantine measures following international travel are likely to be the most salient behaviours to control the spread of COVID-19 in future (Cevik, Baral, Crozier, & Cassell, 2021). While our sample was intended to be nationally representative, there was an over-representation of older, White people of a higher socioeconomic status. Since the data were collected online, it is likely that additional determinants from marginalized groups, such as those with limited access to technology or limited literacy skills, were missing from our data (Braun et al., 2020). We used an open-ended question to gather data. Although this allowed us to code spontaneous themes from the data, tailoring questionnaire prompts to TDF domains could have provided more data about overlooked domains.

Conclusions
This study adds to the body of literature attempting to catalogue determinants of compliance to government COVID-19 guidance, and provides insight into the ways the British public describe their adherence to these measures. We observed six domains that influenced adherence: Environmental Context and Resources; Beliefs about Consequences; Social Influences; Memory, Attention and Decision Processes; Emotion; and Knowledge. Despite extensive structural obstacles, the majority of the British public were able to follow government COVID-19-related instructions provided they had sufficient resources, social support, and positive perceptions about the effectiveness of the measures. Ambiguities surrounding key terminology in the guidance left room for interpretation, which may have contributed to non-adherence. This paper outlines important challenges to be addressed by policymakers and government health bodies to facilitate adherence to future government health messages.

Data availability statement
Data available on request from the authors.  Only travelling to work one day a fortnight (I'm a teacher on a rota). Not having physical contact with anyone apart from my immediate family. Only using the car to go to work occasionally and drive once a week to buy food. Washing hands more often. Remaining as far as physically possible from people; we spend quite a bit of time chatting to friends and neighbours from opposite ends of garden paths though. Haven't been in anyone else's house for 6 weeks. I do leave the house more than once a day to exercise though; I go for a run in the morning then walk the dog in the afternoon because if I don't run then I'll go mad and the dog won't run with me.

Emotion Emotion
Washing hands after shopping / being out. Washing hands more regularly. Keeping at least two metres away from people where possible. Only going out for exercise and shopping. This advice is given to the government by experts and therefore I am following it.

Memory, attention and decision processes
Memory, attention, and decision processes Trying to follow them as closely as possible but making occasional trips to carry out jobs for a vulnerable parent Memory, attention and decision processes

Memory, attention and decision processes
Stay-at-home all the time, keep a distance of 2 metres from anyone who delivers anything, wash hands for 2 minutes frequently, get food and medicines delivered, . . . it's been more difficult to get my 19-year-old son to always follow the instructions at first, he was still seeing his girlfriend at weekends, but I explained to him that they had to make a decision and how dangerous it was. it took some time for them both to take it seriously but now they do. I think the mixed messages from government didn't help at that stage. now they stay apart